Long Range TR Infantry Weapons

TR long range infantry weapons need a huge overfull or at least some buff. TR infantry weapons don't even compare to VS or NC at range. I can out range my any tr lmg with the saw or orion. This should not be the case. The tmg-50 should be a least comparable to the saw or orion. TR weapons accuracy needs to be heavily increased the t5-amc isn't even close to the mercenary or solstice at range either. Overall for the TR infantry weapons to compete with NC or VS at range, you need to be able to consecutively land head shots, which isn't very possible at this point.

You, on average, have the highest average RoF in the game for a reason. It's called asymmetrical balance (although it could be better): What the enemy has, you do not. What the enemy does not have, you do have. Simple.

the TMG is aweful, use the NS15M or the T32Bull

our long range weapons are more classified as medium range weapons , i found them quite effective at what they do such as the TMG-50 ,cougar , sabr-13 leave LONG range to bolt actions unless you like plinking people .

and hey i loved the TMG D:

All I'm saying is our recoil should be decreased because of our high fire rate or a similar buff. Decreased recoil would allows us to be competitive at range but also more competitive in closer engagements too. The orion and saw are similar to the TR lmgs in closer ranges but, because of the their higher damage, lower fire rate, and lower recoil multiplier they're a bit more effective. A VS or NC can score more head shots giving them an advantage. When I was tying NC, my ttk was significantly lower at most ranges. Currently with over 450 hours in planetside 2, as an experienced player I can play much more effectively with a NC or VS than TR, showing things are slightly unbalanced.

Alright uh... I agree TR doesn't have the best ranged options but all of your examples are terrible.

T5 AMC is better than the Solstice at range. It just is, there's no argument: it has lower horizontal recoil w/advanced grip, and it has way higher velocity and gains a ton from HVA as well. And it has 10 extra rounds per mag and a larger ammo pool, which is actually quite nice if you're camping as LA.

TR also have the Cougar, which is kind of a Razor clone, maybe a bit worse.

They don't have anything quite on par with the Pulsar C or AC-X11 though.
___

TMG-50 is way, way better at range than Orion. It's not even close. The SAW may be better at range than TMG-50 but it's not by a large margin and the SAW has more weaknesses.

Again, you're comparing it to the wrong weapons. Flare and Ursa on VS are pretty sucky, worse than TMG-50 really. NC's comparable weapons are better, but the faction just seems like the "these guys get the best higher bullet damage options". Hopefully that will change now that DBG is doing balance passes though.

___

TR's strong point definitely isn't ranged combat, but they're not so far behind that you can't succeed at a ranged role with any of their weapons. You will be pretty close using a Cougar/T5 or TMG-50/Rhino.

You can also just use NS weapons, which are pretty decent out to mid-range. I've been using NS-11C as VS, and while it's not as good as Pulsar C at nailing heads at longer ranges, it offers enough unique advantages to make up for that.

Yeah, I know my vs examples weren't too great, I don't play as much VS as I used to. I just want a buff to make the TR more comparable to other factions, instead of being the underdog in many ways.

As an ex-TR I can tell you that it's not that much better over on VS.

VS has a few weapons I do consider superior(but Orion/ SVA/ Betelgeuse are all getting nerfed and MSW-R will be roughly as good as them if not better post-nerfs), but then again I'd love to have something as good as Pounders, Prowler, Jaguar on VS. Which leaves VS with..the Pulsar C and that's about it for me - and I've been using NS-11C lately anyway.

TR's biggest issue though is actually long range anti-vehicle options, much moreso than any carbine/LMG issues. Lancer and especially Ravens(which are extremely overpowered) give VS and NC much better infantry AV.

Yeah, I agree with that too, I think TR infantry weapons as a whole need a change or buff aside from medic assault rifles.

I'm surprised with over 450 hours of experience that you make the mistake of listing the Orion as a hard-hitting, slow-firing LMG. The recoil multiplier thing is also a bit off considering you're comparing 143-damage weapons with a 200-damage weapon (SAW).

I don't think any faction is lacking long-range options so much, just that the NC is oversaturated with them.

I mentioned the orion because it's good all round and I compared it to the saw because it may be a 200 damage tier but it's still good at most scenarios. Thanks for all the replies so far everyone.

I do alright with the Bull. Actually put SPA w/Compensator on it. Don't laugh, its pretty damned effective. Like it so much, I've been swapping Carbines and ARs over to SPA/Comp set up.

Other than that, if something has Advanced Lazer Sights like the TRV; I'll run with it. Still can't maker up my mind if I like the MSW-R with the FG or lazer sight.

LMG hipfire is trash - FG all the way. As for the TRV - it's hipfire is trash as well - FG again. If you want to hipfire with an AR pull the TAR/TORQ-9 and deck them out properly (do bear in mind though, that the TAR is a 0.75 ADS gun).

I'd agree the NC6 SAW is better a long range, but the Orion? The Orion has a suprisingly long effective range, but no way it is better than the TMG-50 at long range.

Conversly the NC doesn't really have a great choice of CQB LMGs, even the Anchor is actually a superb mid-range LMG rather than a genuinely great close range one.

The Anchor is a superb CQC weapon; 167/600 + 3 HS kill within 15 meters.

If you ADS in close range there are better options and if you are hipfiring there are better options.
It is in no way at all bad at close range, but it is superb at mid-range.

What you are suggesting would mean that the NC6 SAW and EM6 are also "superb CQC weapons".

It's hard to say which LMG are really most effective at long range. It really comes down to aim and burst fire control. Almost all of them have should probably be burst fired so rate of fire/real ttk does stay as the more relevant stat. The carv used to have a problem that even in burst fire the accuracy was not good enough for long range. Not sure if that is such a problem any more.

And they might as well be - for me. It's quite subjective, I admit. The stats I mentioned are what makes the Anchor a superb CQC tool in my eyes. I also consider it to be objectively the best at CQC as far as NC LMGs go.

Even the bull with SPA and no compensator has great long range accuracy.
I kill saw and Orion users with it every play session.